You’ve got to be kidding me.
After this interview with Dinesh D’Souza was pointed out to me, I went over to the official TPM book shelf and noticed that we’d received a review copy of The Enemy at Home. So I leafed through the introduction. And D’Souza really does see bin Laden and his sundry cohorts as freedom fighters against abortion, homosexuals and free love in general.
On the upside, ‘the party of Dinesh D’Souza” has a nice ring. Unlike well-known rightwing hate magnets like Ward Churchill and whatshername who harrassed Jeff Goldstein and then went crazy, D’Souza really is a feted member of the partisan pundit community. As far as many rightwingers are concerned he’s as mainstream as you get. And you know, instead of giving an obscure speech or annoying a blogger D’Souza wrote a book and then promoted it pretty heavily.
Atrios has posited that there is basically nothing a rightwing pundit can say that will disqualify him/her from the cocktail weenie circuit. Call it Black’s Law, unless I’m wrong and somebody else proposed it first. Safe to say that if anybody can finally disprove (or, sadly, prove) Black’s Law it will be Dinesh D’Souza.
To add, at least D’Souza doesn’t curse. That would be uncivil.
The problem here is that Regnery et al. make a lot of money of D’Souza and his ilk. So why shouldn’t he be part of the cocktail weenie circuit?
This is all you need to know about the credibility of Newsmax. And there’s a mountain of literature out there behind this article, going back to 1996.
Not convinced? Okay, keep reading.
D’Souza now is in the same class of people as Pat Robertson and Charles Manson. Crackpot theories are a dime a dozen.
What the hell?
Is there a law of physics that dictates the more you’re wrong, the better your pay scale?
The Other Steve
Not surprising. Despots always find a foreign reason to target their hatred against local opposition.
Invading Iraq was about winning the 2002 elections for the Republicans, and 2004 after Bush marched home to his Victory Arch d’Triumphe in Washington.
The only mistake D’Souza has made is that he said what everybody else knew out loud.
More radical righty logic.
We should pull out of Iraq = We’re a bunch of traitorous surrender monkeys who think everyone should all convert to Islam and spit shine bin Laden’s arse.
We should all leap into our arseholes to avoid annoying the terrorists so they don’t attack us = Great thinking by a true American!
I wouldn’t say there was a law, but there does seem to be a strong correlation.
Have any prominent right-wingers actually distanced themselves from D’Souza’s thesis?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Or have any espoused it?
Falwell and Robertson, on 9/13.
Over at the Corner there have been a couple of fairly tepid but negative responses to D’Souza. Generally speaking, I think D’Souza has not written a book that anyone on the right will embrace, and this book is just a big fat target for liberals. I am amused that he has taken a certain conservative tendency and pushed it to the ultimate extreme–we have been told that the terrorists struck because they “hate our freedom.” That freedom includes some things distateful to conservatives. Being gay is not a crime. Women, religious minorities, and ethnic minorities have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to be left alone. People are allowed to consume almost without limit whatever media communications they want, including licnentious TV shows, pornography, obnoxious political rants, etc.. etc. So the problem for conservatives is that to respond to Dinesh’s book, you either have to say that the terrorists’ grievances were legitimate (which I frankly doubt anyone will do) or say that the freedoms we enjoy are good things (which they won’t do because they disagree with many of these freedoms). So I think the main response we can expect from the right will be … silence.
I have no doubt there are many conservatives who are disgusted by D’Souza’s thesis, although I’d note that Townhall.com recently gave him a big platform. But there’s this ongoing charade that plays out whenever someone on the Right makes an outrageous statement, where all the prominent right-wing bloggers will declare “Ann Coulter has gone too far this time” or “I only think of Ann Coulter as an entertainer, not a serious commentator,” or whatever – whereupon dozens of wingnuts will show up in the comments section to defend Coulter’s honor and declare that she speaks the TRUTH.
There’s nothing new about this. Back in the 90s, I remember all the “serious” conservatives telling us how Rush Limbaugh was just an entertainer and how he was hardly a mainstream voice of the movement or anything like that. Now, the Vice-President of the United States is a regular guest on his show, and the front page of Redstate.com tells me “Rush’s ideas matter.”
So I’m not falling for the song and dance where the Republican elites claim that D’Souza doesn’t speak for them, if they even bother to go through the motions. Of course he doesn’t speak for the elites. This kind of slime is targeted directly at the base, and they love it.
Tim in SF
D’Souza’s thesis is hardly original. Dolchstoss has been a staple argument of right wingers since the 1940s. Check out this article which nicely outlines how this set of accusations pops up over and over again.
Same and worse with how the lib base cheers and defends “terrorists are like Minutemen” Michael Moore. And D’Souza’s book can’t begin to compare with this kind of shit coming from the left (a former NY Times reporter no less), including a nice Salon review in which not an eyebrow was raised over his comparison of America under Bush to Germany under Hitler. This passes as ‘serious thought’ among many on the left
Darrell’s last name is TuQuoque
Shorter Darrell: But liberals are worse!
Wow, you’re absolutely right, Darrell. This is a grave insult to Hitler.
“But liberals are worse” doesn’t answer the question, Darrell. Do you agree with D’Souza?
It’s a pinnacle of current republican economic theory.
can we have more of that pornography please…and not on pay-per-view? I mean c’mon prudes have the v-chip and I can hide all the channels I couldn’t give a rats ass about (which is most of them) with my remote control.
If you would but read a bit of history and/or just watch anything on the history channel regarding the American Revolution you would find Moore is not completely right nor completely wrong. In fact a good portion of the American revolution was fought like an insurgency replete with Gorilla warfare and use of terror style tactics to, gasp, terrorize the british. Then again it would be extremely hard for a bush supporter to even entertain the notion that Moore might be right if not completely. So instead they just forget history as it was recorded we’ll forget it ever happened.
Again there are parallels. Of course the one thing bush has yet to do is kill political enemies or attempt genocide against the jews. However with the likes of D’Souza whispering in their ears it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine them attempting it against Arabs and muslims…oh wait there are a lot screaming for just that among the Talibaptists.
Do I agree with what specifically? I haven’t read the book, but I’m sure he advances several different arguments, so explain what position you are asking me about.
In your world, are things so black and white that one must agree with everything or nothing?
Proof of my point that many on the left really do take the Bush/Nazi comparison to be “valid”.
Only in your case.
Has Darrell’s endless troll finally run its course?
Try and believe that the same person wrote both these comments.
There are valid points to it. Is every point valid? No. But there are similarities. Of course I notice you refused to address the rest of what I said (typical) regarding the calls for genocide against Arabs and muslims. Again I guess history was something a lot of people slept through, or like their dear leader they just lac any curiosity to consider any opinion which does not march in lock step with their ideology.
Steve and TZ,
I am just hoping to get him to end up pulling a Bishop from the movie Alien.
Oh sure the right-wingers would never write something so offensive. Sure.
BTW, the guy at Salon talks about nut-cases like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, not “conservatives” in general. To compare these guys with fascist is quite valid, especially if you remember Father Coughlin.
Tell us then, what are the “valid” points to the comparison of America under Bush to Germany under Hitler. Please elaborate as to what you believe the ‘similarities’ are between the two.
He does not limit his points to Dobson and Robertson. He makes the overall comparison of America under George Bush to Germany under Hitler.
Telling how many of you defend this.
It’s almost as though some of you alternate playing him. It’s like talking to someone who has multiple personality disorder.
You’re either with us, or you’re with D’Souza.
I think I speak for everyone when I say — please, please, please pick D’Souza.
Darrell, you have this amazing ability to change the subject every time the topic grows uncomfortable. One of the first lessons in troll school, of course, is that everybody prefers playing offense than defense. Yet look how easy it is. A more manipulative person than yourself would make a sort of game out of it.
Let’s try a simple exercise. I will ask you whether you consider Dinesh D’Souza a mainstream conservative pundit. Pretty simple, right? Now I challenge you to give me a straight answer without demanding that I apologize for some person holding a sign at a protest five years ago or some other intentional distraction.
For extra credit you can listen to the interview that Josh Marshall links to and give a response. D’Souza’s thesis is actually pretty simple: terrorists hate decadent liberal values, and they are right to do so. Therefore liberal values caused 9/11, and we should fight them (in a sense, alongside the terrorists) before they cause it again. For a guy who deals comfortably in moral absolutes that shouldn’t be too hard to come to a judgment about.
He doesn’t talk about America under Bush, he talks about fascist tendencies of Christian Right. As far as I know, Christian Right are not yet in full power in America. The book talks about where the empowerment of Christian Right could lead in the future.
What you say about the book is just typical spin, like reading “X. want peace in the Palestine” as “X. hearts Palestinian terrorists”.
But I’m the one who changed the subject. I was responding to Steve’s self righteous nonsense, wasn’t I? Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to own up to your false accusation..
Let’s be clear. You’re trying to equate a book written by a former NY Times reporter reviewed in Salon, with “some person” holding a sign at a protest march.
You see the dishonesty?
Oh, fer fuck’s sake, Darrell. This is a direct quote from the Salon piece (emphases mine):
As he notes, he spent enough time around totalitarian regimes “like Hamas or Milosevic, or even some of the despotic movements in Latin America like Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala,” that he’d “already been conditioned to smell these people out.” And the far-right Christians he’s talking about sound and operate the same way as those regimes did in their nascent stages.
You’ll further note that he explicitly denied the notion that America is like Nazi Germany. Yet that’s how you choose to characterize this, demanding that we describe just how America under Bush is like Hitler Germany under Hitler. You, senator, are the only person in this thread–including the author interviewed in the Salon piece whose words you are completely distorting–making that charge, and you are demanding that people who don’t believe it defend it.
So the question to you remains thus: Do you not comprehend what you’re linking to, are you trying to hew to a certain political line, or are you just a twit?
Quod Erat Douchebag.
Sen. Cornyn would like to refer that question to his press secretary. Next?
That is two posts and no answer. If you want a dissertation on the various ways that you use the ‘lefties are always worse’ tu quoque argument, sure, here you go. Every time you respond to a bad act by any GOPer your reflex is always to point to some bad act by a leftie. I’m not even sure whether you do it consciously. Some days it is an unsettling sign at a protest, other days it is a book, which as Nikolay points out you don’t seem to understand very well. The reflex is the same every time.
Let’s try again. D’Souza – mainstream conservative pundit? Even the mere existence of the word ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in your answer will be progress. I suppose that we can give up on the extra credit for now.
Bush – Loyalty oaths to attend rallies.
Hitler – Loyalty oaths to attend rallies.
Bush – stacking posts not with qualified personnel but with vetted political operatives.
Hitler – stacking posts with vetted political operatives.
Bush – Belief he is an instrument of god.
Hitler – Belief he is an instrument of god.
Bush – Used the WMD smokescreen to attack Iraq.
Hitler – Used a faked attack against germany as an excuse to invade poland.
Bush – Uses religion as the deterministic factor with regard to policy and has attempted to use it to alter official policy with regards to what is taught in schools and who can get what grants.
Hitler – Same only difference is for hitler it was racism.
Bush – use of propaganda to instill fear in the citizenry (Remember 9/11, the terrorists will get us, color coded “warning” systems) all of which used as justification for every usurpation of civil liberties (see NSA surveillance, signing statements to bipass the will of congress and most recently with regards to personal mail).
Hitler – use of propaganda to instill fear in the citizenry vis-a-vis the idea of a Jewish conspiracy and his rampant racism.
Bush – Gauntanamo, Abu Ghraib, and soon to be built detention facilities here in the U.S. (in some cases already built and in use for example as a result of the swift Raids). Lacking only a “shower” room.
Hitler – Detention camps for enemies of the state most notably Jewish people. They had the “shower” room though.
Bush – Ignored the military with regard to the generals.
Hitler – Ignored the military with regard to the Generals.
Bush – relied on a small cadre of inner circle appointees for any and all information with little regard for dissenting opinion.
Hitler – ditto.
Bush – uses policy to court fringe groups on the evangelical right and relies on them as “the base”. (see opposition to marriage equality for all people, stem cell research, faith based bullshit).
Hitler – relied on occult and other “fringe” ways of thinking to make decisions and consulted with occult leaders.
Bush – Used a war with Iraq for political means and as a diversion from problems at home.
Hitler – Used a war with Poland for political means and as a diversion from problems at home.
Want more? Given the quantity of information available I am sure I could continue…hell could even write a book..oh wait someone did.
The really interesting question is how many louts D’Souza will get to agree with his scheme to Win Friends And Influence People in the Moslem world by agreeing with their repression and/or execution of women and gays. After all, the number of people who regard hate as a lesser sin than sexual looseness is really quite high in every society.
You selectively quoted from the Salon piece in order to avoid the more damning aspects of the interview like this:
Salon: But don’t you feel like the tipping point is still quite a way off? Speaking personally, when I’ve read about totalitarian movements, I’ve always imagined that I’d know enough to pack up and go. That would seem to be a very premature thing to do here.
Hedge’s response: Well, most people didn’t pack up and go. The people who packed up and left were the exception, and most people thought they were crazy. My friends in Pristina had no idea what was going on in Kosovo until they were literally herded down to the train station and pushed into boxcars and shipped like cattle to Macedonia. And that’s not because they weren’t intelligent or perceptive. It was because, like all of us, they couldn’t comprehend how fragile the world was around them, and how radically and quickly it could change. I think that’s a human phenomenon.
Hitler was in power in 1933, but it took him until the late ’30s to begin to consolidate his program. He never spoke about the Jews because he realized that raw anti-Semitism didn’t play out with the German public. All he did was talk about family values and restoring the moral core of Germany. The Russian revolution took a decade to consolidate. It takes time to acculturate a society to a radical agenda, but that acculturation has clearly begun here, and I don’t see people standing up and trying to stop them.
Again, this is not some randomly selected whackjob plucked from a crowd, it is a former New York Times bureau chief who has written a book seriously being reviewed in Salon.
And not an eyebrow raised over his Nazi comparison either by the Salon interviewer.
While I’m (shockingly) not the foremost advocate of Bush-Hitler comparisons, I would be remiss if I failed to provide this link.
So it’s reading comprehension problems for you, then? Well, I guess that’s more sympathetic than merely being a twit.
Dreggas, give it up it’s hopeless.
It’s not even fun to mock Senator Shortbus anymore. It’s like playing against the computer in Tecmo Bowl or something. Sure, scoring 100 points in a game would be teh awesome, but is it really worth my time?
Hitler – lost the war because he was ultimately crazy and nobody could stop him.
GW – ditto
I have scored over 100 points in a game of Tecmo Bowl vs the computer and there was no real effort to be made. it was just a matter of using the team programmed to have the best advantage.
I am obssessive about stuff like that…
I believe that the extent and degree of extremism on each side matters a great deal. I see far more extremism on the left than I see on the right. No comparison really.
So when go out of your way to post statements like this
In that context, I think it’s entirely fair to point out the far more extreme excesses coming from the left with a similar situation. As with D’Souza, I’m taking a recently published high profile book as one point of comparison. The responses and defense of leftists here on this thread who defend the Nazi comparisons further reinforces my point.
Now Tim, do you agree that Chris Hedges is not some ‘random protester’ as you suggested earlier, but instead, a well established mainstream media type on the left who was in fact a bureau chief with the NY Times?
Only Darrell can invalidate his own arguments all by himself.
Shorter Darrell: The right calls for genocide, the left calls for accountability. Therefore the left is more extreme because they are shrill.
We went from the land of No-Torture to the land of Republicans want to torture. The land of privacy is King to ‘Trust us, the King only wants to spy on you illegally’.
Can Darrell truthfully say he sees nothing wrong with how this silliness has gone over ‘terrorists’ who have somehow become more scary and dangerous then Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan & Soviet Russia?
I think everyone should stop mocking Darrell. He’s doing a fine enough job making himself look like an idiot.
So your point is: it’s unfair to compare Pat Robertson with Mussolini? Your point is: in no way Pat Robertson’s politics could lead to something horrible? What is so “outrageous” about this comparison?
The passages you underlined don’t say that Bush could be compared to Hitler, they say that Christian Right could be compared to Hitler. You know, Hitler was not always a leader of Germany, he was just a popular politician for a long time before coming to power.
What part of the second quote–the one by the guy you accuse of making “Nazi comparisons”–is tripping you up, big D? Is it the word “no?” It seems like a pretty straightforward, easy-to-understand phrase. Why are you having such trouble grasping it?
It seems to me that Darrell, who has not read the book, is criticizing the rest of us, who have not read the book either, for not disavowing the book. Frankly, with logic like that it’s no wonder he perceives far more extremism on the left.
It’s a simple equation:
Robertson = mouth of god
Bush = mouth of god
if (Robertson = mouth of god) AND (Bush = mouth of god) Then
If(Robertson = Nazi) Then Bush = Nazi
Re-read what the passage said.
Except for the personality part.
I notice you refuse to acknowledge my examples but rather say I am a leftist defending the comparison. Funny that anyone defending the comparisson is a leftist in your view. So much for this:
Of course I know this requires a basic education in the history of the past century (so 1900’s I know) but please, do make the attempt at learning it that way at least you won’t make the same mistake as Dear Leader and repeat it.
Well, Steve, you unhinged extremist moonbat dishonest hack (pause for breath) why haven’t you read the book so as to disavow it? The hypocrisy of the wackjob left knows no bounds.
I take exception with that. Namely the part “wackjob left”. I am a part of the wackjob center and really claim no major political affiliation but am a wackjob (I take pills for that *twitch*). Of course it is a lot of fun. I can get lambasted on dKos for not toeing some of their lines (individuals not the site as a whole) and get the Darrell’s of the world screeching that I am some kind of leftist.
Oh the joys of being an independent, thinking adult who doesn’t toe any particular line save his own. In other words something this country is in dire need of more of.
I acknowledge your examples and there can be no doubt you are vigorously defending the comparison of Bush to Hitler.
Is it similarly fair game to claim it’s valid to compare Martin Luther King to Hitler because they both had moustaches and mistresses and were charismatic speakers? See my point?
The one on top of your head?
Umberto Eco, super-genius.
Only when you post.
It’s really surprising that I haven’t read the book, frankly. I mean, haven’t you heard, the guy was a New York Times bureau chief? By liberal standards, that’s like being the Archbishop of Canterbury.
What part of this does Darrell dispute?
Shorter Darrell: Look, a pony!
Only if you’re mentally challenged or chemically dependent on crack.
When you can come up with one stronger than the point of a pencil I might. Until then here’s some pie.
“The dark night of fascism is always descending upon the United States, yet it only seems to land in Europe.”
The thesis of TimF’s post was that the crazies on the left are non-mainstream whackjobs like, as he cites, Ward Churchill and the crazy chick who (I’m supposing) stalked Jeff Goldstein.. whereas the craziness on the right, ala D’Souza, are embraced by mainstream conservatism.
When I pointed out a mainstream example on the left (former NY Times bureau chief, book reviewed by Salon) making statements far more extreme than anything D’Souza is said to have written, Tim claims I am “changing the subject”
Is this honest? Of course it isn’t. But it’s all he’s got.
Excuse me, people don’t try to stop the Christian Right? If this guy publishes a new edition of his book, he might need a post-election chapter.
You can probably find people as crazy as Hitler on every streetcorner. It seems to me that the problem with Germany was not so much Hitler, as it was an overabundance of Darrells.
Far more extreme then D’Souza?
I call schenanigans!
In a book, D’Souza claims liberals were to blame for 9/11 and implies that conservative Americans should make common cause with Al Qaeda against their common enemy.
In an off-the-cuff interview, Hedges notes that past totalitarian governments took control by a matter of degrees, rather than an immediate coup.
Yeah, that second comment is surely “far more extreme” than the first.
Not everyone can have the voices in your head, Darrell.
Rush Limbaugh….James Dobson….Ahmed Chalabi….Ted Haggard….
Hmmmm all of the above are embraced by mainstream conservatism (if such a thing exists anymore) since they, along with the rightwing blogosphere, are the face of “conservatism” as it stands today. Gone are any and all principles rather they still obsess over stained dresses and cigars, use strawmen to frame their arguments and have driven this country into the ground fiscally which would be the complete opposite of the form of conservatism as I was raised to see it. Furthermore they have pandered to the religious right, something that would once have been anathema to the right as they were the champions of individual liberty and freedom of choice etc. Of course now they are the mirror opposite.
Quite a few have been invited to the White House and others granted access to and interviews of many administration officials while others were denied. Meanwhile the rightwing blogosphere has trumpeted candidates that are the polar opposite of anyone who can claim to wear the title of “conservative” unless it is taken in its current day context of social conservative. Not to mention it was not but 6 years ago that these same republicans screamed about nation building and how the U.S. should not be doing it to cheerleading just such endeavors in Iraq, and no the old “9/11 changed everything” line doesn’t fly anymore. 9/11 didn’t change shit. All it did was enable these people to do things they had planned on from the beginning and ahead of schedule. Just look at bush wanting any and all info linking Saddam to 9/11.
In fact I’d wager it’s because of these hacks and mouth-pieces who spew the same garbage as D’Souza and his ilk that people like John left the GOP as it stands today and one reason I doubt I could ever vote for a republican at the national level again. The inmates are running the asylum that is the current GOP.
Hedges is D’Souza’s counterpart?
D’Souza worked for the Reagan White House. Remind me — which Democratic administration was Hedges part of?
And to wrap up my point since I forgot to add it. Whereas the whitehouse and the administration as well as congress when under republican control obsessively courted these mouth-pieces where were the invites to Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan to be prominant speakers or the equivalent for the Democrats? Hmmm nowhere last I looked. I don’t see Nancy Pelosi inviting in the heads of PETA, ELF, ALF, or Michael Moore, or hell any of the anti-war groups to consult on policy yet we have seen the likes of Haggard and Dobson being consulted with.
Furthermore if the best you can do is one Michael Moore to a large list of bigots and mouth pieces on the right then your own form of moral relativism is extremely weak. I’d almost posit you would want the return of the fairness doctrine too but were probably against it pre Nov 7 since it would, of course, levelled the playing field in favor of the Democrats.
Of course! He compared Bush to Hitler!*
*NOTE: He actually quite explicitly denied any sort of comparison…but taking that fact cuts off Darrell’s argument at the knees. So he had to invent a new position and claim it’s the “real” one. I mean, surely you can appreciate the bind that he’s in: How else is he supposed to make his argument when the facts don’t support him?
It wasn’t benign as you suggest. In responding to an interviewer’s question, which was essentially “Don’t you think we’re too far away from totaliatarianism to justify all your Nazi scare talk”, Hedges immediately goes on to justify his comparison of America now to Nazi Germany, specifically comparing America now to Germany in 1933, just after Nazis had come to power
It was more than just some casual observation on Hedge’s part about how totalitarian govts come to power. See my 5:44pm post for the entire verbatim exchange. But typical of the leftists here to justify and defend such extremist comparisons.
And this thesis is incorrect…how, exactly?
Yes, but once she was in a parade that also had a NAMBLA float! Nancy Pelosi: Charter member of NAMBLA!
This has stopped Darrell before?
Michael Moore was personally greeted by Jimmah Carter at the Democratic national convention and was given VIP seating in the presidential booth next to Carter during the DNC. He also hosted a private special meeting with the leader of the DNC along a number of leading Dem Senators and congressmen. Michael Moore was embraced by Dems at the highest levels.
I can google Dem invites for Cindy Sheehan if you want, but I think I’ve sufficiently refuted your point already.
Right Side: We need to Ally with Al Queda and kill the liberals.
Left Side: The Right Side is starting to look like Facists.
Darrell: Obviously the Left Side is Extremist.
Shorter Darrell: Look at my obvious distraction!
So Hedges is asked, hey, aren’t we far off from a totalitarian government like the Nazis? And he answers by saying it took a while before the Nazi totalitarian government came to full fruition. Yeah, that was a wild-eyed leap.
Someone please tell me Darrell is a spoof.
Refresh my memory…just what position does Jimmy Carter (who I personally think is a twit) hold in the current Congress?
Here’s some more pie…
This would make more sense if you made an effort to address the original topic first. You didn’t. Instead you instantly demand that everybody start talking about a topic of your choosing.
Case in point:
After all this time you still refuse to address the original point of the thread. Do you have some moral objection to speaking on the record about Dinesh D’Souza? Wait, scratch that. It’s probably too much to expect you to answer two questions at once.
Two? I’m waiting to see him answer one.
The NY Times which we all know is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy that wants to immediately surrender to the terrorists, make abortion mandatory, give everyone hands on education in gay sex and other nefarious and unwholesome activities.
In other words part of the rest of the world that is not just like Bush, Dobson, Cheney,
Haggard(oh whoops he’s bi at the least), and the rest of the right wing that has so thoroughly tarnished the reputation of this country over the past 12 years (it started when clinton was in office). And before you even try Darrell Clinton is liked more by the rest of the world (and this country even) than Bush ever was. I know, I know hard to fathom.
Of course here agains is another instance where we could easily compare the current admin with the admin as run by the Nazi’s in Germany in that they were very good at labelling anyone who did not toe their line as being enemies of the state (hannity is such an Olberman wannabe) and trying to silence them at first through outshouting them.
The one thing America has going for it is we were actually doing pretty damn good until this Admin took over so it wasn’t as easy to completely fool the populous into marching lockstep with these asshats. Nor were the majority of us ignorant of History and while it will take a while to undo the damage that is done (most notably with regard to political affiliation of any one being a scarlet letter to the other side) 6 years is a blip, a comma, even on the history books.
November 7th was the first step on the road to recovery and fortunately the country took it. We admitted to the problem somewhere between 05 and 06 so if this were a 12 step program we’d be doing ok.
And In Other news:
How shall we fuck off Oh lord?
Your “original topic” as explained in your post, was that while leftist extremism is typically not part of the mainstream left, and almost always exists only at the margins, ala Ward Churchill. Whereas conservative extemism, on the other hand, is embraced by conservative mainstream.
That was your original topic, the thesis of your post. Deny it all you want, but you know it’s the truth.
As I have already demonstrated, it was not a new topic of “my choosing” as you (dishonestly?) assert, but it addressed the very thesis of your post.
James Dobson – Meetings in the White House.
Ted Haggard – Meetings in the White House.
Ann Coulter – lauded by “mainstream conservatives”
Bill O’Reilly – Has his own TV Show on Fox News and is lauded just as Coulter is.
Dinesh D’Souza – served in The Reagan white house, has written several bgooks lauded by mainstream conservatives with regards to being anti-affirmative action and anti-feminist.
Anyone currentlys in the AEI – After all this is the core clap louder crowd that promoted bush and the Iraq War.
Again want me to continue?
I wonder how many comments it will take before Darrell actually tells us what he thinks of D’Souza’s thesis. My sense is never. Instead, we’re scheduled for several hundred more posts of “I’m sure D’Souza has a number of arguments, now how about my paraphrase of something this random liberal said?”
Hahahaha! If all the copies of Idiocracy are still checked out at the video store, I am renting me some Monty Python tonight.
You will never get Darrell to admit that Jerry Falwell being consulted by the White House on Supreme Court nominations even comes close to Michael Moore getting a good seat at the Democratic convention. You just won’t, it’s been tried. Fair warning.
Meeting with whom? Not Bush and Cheney. Want to dig up all the unsavory characters who met with the Clinton during his administration? This blog doesn’t have the bandwidth capacity to handle those many links.
Yes, he has written several books, and he opposes affirmative action and many/most aspects of the modern feminist movement
I like to see your source confirming that Bush consulted with Falwell over who to select for Supreme court nominations.
Perhaps WH “consulting” with Falwell = some second tier aides calling Falwell to ask his support in supporting Bush’s nominations.
Since Steve is a self-proclaimed “big fan of the truth”, I’m sure he wouldn’t deliberately mislead, would you Steve?
Looks like Senator Shortbus did a Google search between 8:05 and 8:09.
It’s not as reliable as Sen. Cornyn’s press releases, but it does uncover certain facts.
Darrell: Proudly Moving Goalposts since 2001.
Shorter Darrell: Clinton did it too!
so ‘greeted by’ and ‘sitting next to’ are the equivilent to ‘prominent speaker’. gotcha.
And, funny, but the evidence does directly support Steve’s claim:
He never said Bush. He said White House. And lo and behold:
You wouldn’t deliberately mislead, would you Darrell?
mistress: a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship
There you go again Darrell, making stuff up again. MLK was married, Adolf not (unless you think he snuck someone in between the marriage and suicide).
I applaud you, Darrell! It’s hard work driving the Republican bus further into the wilderness of irrelevancy every single day of the week, but somehow you manage to do it! Keep up the good work! You country is grateful!
You forgot Rush Limbaugh.
“A national treasure” -GW Bush
Darrell has access to the White House visitor logs. Colour me impressed.
Oh my God. It all makes sense now — the idiocy, the arrogance, the petulance, the ability to read people’s minds, etc. etc.
Darrell is really George W. Bush.
Idiocracy actually depressed the hell out of me — it was almost a little too prophetic.
So I’ve heard. But I still want to see it. I saw a clip online–it showed an intelligent couple neglecting to reproduce while a bunch of idiots reproduced at an exponential rate–and it only increased my desire to see it.
Oh, it’s definitely worth seeing, and is a pretty hysterical movie. However, like I said, it’s just close enough to our possible future to be really thought-provoking (and slightly depressing.)
Um, GW-Boy? You really are down to just Laura and Barney now. And I think the only reason Barney voted for you was because he misread the ballot.
Uh, yeah. About that…
c’mon man you make this too easy!
Regarding Ted Haggard meeting in the white house:
Here’s One link
Here’s one about ol’ Teddy Boys monday morning conference calls
And we all know Justice Roberts was farmed out to be vetted by the Dobsonites. As for links I can’t find any off hand real quick but I am sure given the Miers nomination and the result of Roberts there is probably a redline just for Dobson.
Now as for Coulter. Yep lauded by “mainstream conservatives” yet a complete and total looney.
D’Souza, yep wrote books criticizing everything from affirmative action to womens lib to…oh now liberals saying the right should make common cause with the islamofascists….Lauded by the right then how about now? Or will you keep deflecting?
oh come on, darrell was just trying to get us to bring up Jonah Goldberg. It’s an act.
Sigh, okay Darrell, I’ll play that game, though since you haven’t read the book, I don’t know how you know that it’s the same and worse as the “lib” examples you mentioned since you seem to be so ignorant of it. D’Souza’s thesis is that the “political and cultural left” in this country bears a responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. That’s 9/11/2001 if you need me to be more specific. The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, if you need me to be more specific still. Do you agree with that thesis? D’Souza’s thesis that is. Specific enough?
Sigh, okay Darrell, I’ll play that game, though since you haven’t read the book, I don’t know how you know that it’s the same and worse as the “lib” examples you mentioned. D’Souza’s thesis is that the “political and cultural left” in this country bears a responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. That’s 9/11/2001 if you need me to be more specific. The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, if you need me to be more specific still. Do you agree with that thesis? D’Souza’s thesis that is. Specific enough?
Sorry ’bout the double post.
Gahhhhhhhh! Darrel arrives and sanity departs. Gahhhhhhh!
there is a cute little excerpt from the book on Amazon:
denounce away, wingnuts.
From Time Magazine’s The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America — Ted Haggard was #11:
Safeguard “wholesome family life”? I guess I just don’t want to know what those are code words for in Ted Haggard’s world…
Here’s a book review by a 9/11 Commission staffer which moves beyond outrage to utterly eviscerate D’Souza’s arguments. A highlight:
What do you know, I’m still waiting. This thread will vanish into obscurity before Darrell ever acknowledges that Dinesh D’Souza is a mainstream conservative pundit.
Don’t be down hearted. If anything his fingers are in knots trying to untype his foot from his mouth.
More from that Wash. Post review that Steve quotes. D’Souza, by God, actually does spend 333 pages saying that they SHOULD “hate us for our freedom”:
“Here’s the main argument, such as it is. Why has al-Qaeda targeted America? ‘Not because of U.S. troops in Mecca,’ D’Souza writes. ‘Not even because of Israel. . . . The suicide bombers of radical Islam are not blowing themselves up because they are distressed over the Gulf War of 1991 or because they are in solidarity with the Palestinians.’ Rather, ‘what bin Laden objected to was America staying in the Middle East, importing with it the immoral ingredients of American values and culture.’ That makes the left ‘responsible for 9/11’ because it ‘has fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies’ and has waged ‘an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures.’ In sum, ‘the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.’ ”
(In his “NewsMax” interview, he compared America to “Gomorrah”. Of course, so has Robert Bork, who — ever since his rejection for the Supreme Court — has seemed obsessed with proving that he’s not qualified to judge a pie-eating contest.)
This, to repeat, is from a member of the Hoover Institution (as I said recently in regard to Victor Davis Hanson, it must be AWFUL easy to get into that place) — and it also comes from a man constantly acclaimed by the American Right for three decades as “one of its most promising young intellectuals”. This is something to keep in mind, ALWAYS, when you are considering the true nature of the American Right. One hell of a big chunk of it always has been, and always will be, fascist.
Three decades? Unless he started when he was ten, at some point he must have stopped being a young intellectual.
Or is this more radical righty math at work?
Of course Dinesh D’Souza is a mainstream conservative. Stephen Colbert told him as much on The Colbert Report last night. Watch the rerun here to watch D’Souza squirm as Colbert enthusiasticly seconded the thesis that liberals are responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
My apologies. It’s just that I’ve been following the career of that jerk and his morally repulsive magazine for so long that it SEEMED like three decades. It must have actually been only two.
It’s going on three man, don’t feel so bad.
Okay, I’m late to the table as usual, but I just had to give Steve a round of applause for that one. Well said!
Egads. Is this a strange form of masochism or do you get paid? Either way, don’t forget the protective clothing.
The googles, they don’t help! My eyes, they BURN!